FBI Says ‘Deadly Force’ Authorization SOP For Mar-A-Lago Raid — Former Secret Service Agent Says Not So Fast

 The FBI issued a statement saying that when Joe Biden’s administration authorized the “use of deadly force” during the 2022 raid on former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, it was largely in accordance with Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) — but former Secret Service Agent Dan Bongino argued that there were other factors involved.

According to a report published Tuesday by Fox News Digital, an “Operations Order” was handed over as part of the discovery process in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s classified documents case against Trump — and that order included a “Policy Statement” that said, “Law Enforcement officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force when necessary.”

The goal of the FBI’s raid on Trump’s property, according to that same order, was to execute a search warrant “to seize classified information, NDI, and US Government records.”

Agents were also reportedly instructed to dress in such a way as to hide “law enforcement equipment” despite being authorized to “Standard Issue Weapons, Ammo, Handcuffs, and medium and large sized bolt cutters.”

The documents also laid out a series of contingencies, according to a Newsweek report, including having a paramedic at the scene and providing details about the nearest trauma center in the event that anyone involved was to be “injured” during the raid. Contingencies also suggested that agents on the scene “will be prepared to engage with” both the former president and his Secret Service detail if he had returned to Mar-a-Lago while they were still on the property.

The FBI responded to reports concerning the newly unsealed documents, saying that the agents who were part of the raid at the former president’s home were acting under SOPs.

“The FBI followed standard protocol in this search as we do for all search warrants, which includes a standard policy statement limiting the use of deadly force. No one ordered additional steps to be taken and there was no departure from the norm in this matter.”

But according to Bongino, the fact that the raid took place on the home of a former president made it anything but standard — and potentially pitted two federal agencies with equal and competing authorities against each other: the FBI/DOJ who were charged with executing the search warrant and the Secret Service, charged with protecting the former president.

“This is absolutely a big deal. Don’t buy the bulls**t otherwise,” Bongino posted via X. “It was not a standard op. The MAL raid was an unprecedented action with significant potential for confusion and blue on blue issues and conflict. It also involved competing equities between federal agencies (FBI & USSS) with equal statutory claims to interrupt the other’s activities. Anyone telling you otherwise is either dumb, or playing dumb. I’ve done more deconfliction with Russians in a foreign op I did for the USSS than the FBI did in their search warrant at MAL. Only a dumba** would pitch the ‘it’s the standard paperwork’ line. Go serve a search warrant at the White House in the cocaine case while filling out your ‘standard paperwork’ and see how that works out for you. Wake up.”

Trump responded to the report, which broke while he was in court in Manhattan for his ongoing hush-money trial, sharing his reaction to the news in a post on Truth Social.

“WOW! I just came out of the Biden Witch Hunt Trial in Manhattan, the ‘Icebox,’ and was shown Reports that Crooked Joe Biden’s DOJ, in their Illegal and UnConstitutional Raid of Mar-a-Lago, AUTHORIZED THE FBI TO USE DEADLY (LETHAL) FORCE. NOW WE KNOW, FOR SURE, THAT JOE BIDEN IS A SERIOUS THREAT TO DEMOCRACY,” Trump posted, adding, “HE IS MENTALLY UNFIT TO HOLD OFFICE — 25TH AMENDMENT!”

Trump’s trial was previously scheduled to begin on Monday, but Judge Aileen Cannon announced on May 7th that it would be postponed indefinitely.

 

“The Court also determines that finalization of a trial date at this juncture—before resolution of the myriad and interconnected pre-trial and [Classified Information Procedures Act] issues remaining and forthcoming—would be imprudent and inconsistent with the Court’s duty to fully and fairly consider the various pending pre-trial motions before the Court, critical CIPA issues, and additional pretrial and trial preparations necessary to present this case to a jury,” Cannon wrote in her decision.